-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
We have dozens and dozens of schemes/blitzes. We only show a handful each game. The coaches will strategize and game plan for where they want to attack. The first two games we were down several horses and did not show much. That’s by design. There is plennnty of things we haven’t shown and probably won’t until Texas
Two things
1. That "slot LB" is lined up further from the LOS than ISU does in all the examples presented. So far, its been rare for us to pile into the box like that this season. Its more often that we are spread way further out and then drop into coverage.
2. That "slot LB" immediately moved to the flat in that call. He vacated the box. That seems typical so far, where we leave very few people near the LOS, and I'm curious to see if do that consistently or if we bring that guy into the box against different teams.
1. That "slot LB" is lined up further from the LOS than ISU does in all the examples presented. So far, its been rare for us to pile into the box like that this season. Its more often that we are spread way further out and then drop into coverage.
2. That "slot LB" immediately moved to the flat in that call. He vacated the box. That seems typical so far, where we leave very few people near the LOS, and I'm curious to see if do that consistently or if we bring that guy into the box against different teams.
3 down linemen force 5 o-line to decide who they need to block before the ball is snapped, if the tackle has to try to block a LB that drops in coverage that is one blocker out of the play. I think it's more about disrupting blocking and creating a numbers advantage. I think ISU has done a good job with their defense and that we will be better than last year with this scheme.
Again, you’re stating specific plays and responsibilities on those specific plays that ISU may very well mimic when they are put in those same situations depending on what the slot receiver is doing, what coverages/blitzes they are running.
We’ve seen a very limited, vanilla portion of the scheme change.
We’ve seen a very limited, vanilla portion of the scheme change.
What other observations can we make? Of course I'm using specific plays and responsibilities, because that's the data we have so far.... . I'm not going to speculate about future calls against future opponents, or if ISU would do something similar. If/when we see the defense you're describing, then I'll discuss that. But so far, we haven't seen that style across the board.
Hopefully you're right about it being part of our "vanilla" approach so far. As with most discussions........we'll have to wait and see!
Hopefully you're right about it being part of our "vanilla" approach so far. As with most discussions........we'll have to wait and see!
Ok.......? But there were also numerous plays in which we DID do exactly what I'm describing. And there were numerous plays against Oregon State as well....
I'll watch more closely against Tulsa and see what we do. But right now, it just *seems* like we have very few people in the box on most defensive plays, and that our "blitzes" are often delayed and easily picked up.
I'll watch more closely against Tulsa and see what we do. But right now, it just *seems* like we have very few people in the box on most defensive plays, and that our "blitzes" are often delayed and easily picked up.
In the first half the defense gave up 96 yards on 36 plays. In the second half it wasn't the same defense out there. Just looking at the participation chart on the OSU athletic site, there were players out there I had never heard of. So, if we gave up yards and were out of position it was with players lacking game experience.
https://okstate.com/boxscore.aspx?id=9072&path=football
https://okstate.com/boxscore.aspx?id=9072&path=football
-
1
- Show all
